An alliance formed around Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civic Contract party won an overwhelming majority in the Yerevan city council elections, despite an ongoing smear campaign by media controlled by the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), former president Robert Kocharyan, and their proxies. The election results substantiated Pashinyan’s determination to dissolve the National Assembly and to hold snap parliamentary elections in December. Despite the confrontational campaign by the RPA and its allies, and their attempts to discredit the government and obstruct investigations into the actions of several former officials, Pashinyan’s high popular support seems enough to advance his political agenda.

August 17 marked the first hundred days in office for Nikol Pashinyan’s government in Armenia, which assumed office after the mass social protests erupting in April and May this year. The leaders of the protest movement underlined that they campaigned for domestic reform, yet the ensuing transition of power followed by a crackdown on corruption and a legal purge among the Armenian political elite has already reverberated in Armenia-Russia relations. Moreover, the new government’s stiff approach towards resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has brought renewed tension in its relations with Azerbaijan.

On April 23, after almost ten days of mounting popular demonstrations, Serzh Sargsyan resigned as Armenia’s Prime Minister. While public antipathy to him mounted throughout this interval, it appears that the army’s impending disintegration into pro and anti-Sargsyan groups was a decisive factor. Yet sadly but typically the Western media ignored one of this year’s major geopolitical stories – namely Armenia’s developing revolution – until Sargsyan resigned and even then covered it sporadically. Since Armenia and its capital Yerevan are off the beaten track, apparently they do not merit major news coverage. We should not emulate this mistake.

The “Velvet revolution” in Armenia raised concerns about the possibility of a Russian intervention in this South Caucasian republic, for the sake of preventing Russia’s key ally in the region from slipping into “Maidanization” and Armenia escaping Moscow’s foreign political and security orbit. Yet events that unfolded illustrated Moscow’s rather ambiguous attitude toward the country’s bottom-up regime change, something that Russian elites, fearful as they are of Western-inspired “color revolutions”, have otherwise done their best to forestall. The explanation for Moscow’s reception of Armenia’s revolution lies in Russia’s clout in Armenia, the character of the popular demonstrations and the regime, and Nikol Pashinyan’s reassuring stance toward Moscow and its interests throughout his campaign.

A predictable attempt by Armenia’s former President Serzh Sargsyan to continue ruling the country as prime minister after the transition to a parliamentary system triggered a massive protest campaign. Despite previous experiences of rather unsuccessful protests, often violently suppressed by police, a new protest movement managed to mobilize wide public support. On April 23, six days after his appointment as prime minister, Sargsyan resigned in the face of mass protests and a civil disobedience campaign. The protest actions will likely continue, with demands including the appointment of an opposition representative as the head of a provisional government and snap parliamentary elections.

The Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst is a biweekly publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, a Joint Transatlantic Research and Policy Center affiliated with the American Foreign Policy Council, Washington DC., and the Institute for Security and Development Policy, Stockholm. For 15 years, the Analyst has brought cutting edge analysis of the region geared toward a practitioner audience.